Would you?

[SoxSport]

nonsensical question. No Lester. No Pap. No championship chance.

[Flynnatic10]

In the end the Red Sox will have a 1-2 ace combo with Josh Beckett and Jon Lester.....with three dynamite bullpen arms in Papelbon, Hansen, and Delcarmen

 

.....that has a great chance to win us more than one championship but no guarantees. My answer would be "no" despite the fact the true goal in sports is to win the championship.

 

That was a bad prediction.

[redsoxrules]

That was a bad prediction.

 

Not really...

 

Beckett and Lester are the ace of this staff and Papelbon is the closer.

 

60% of his prediction was good.

[yeszir]

ksushi

[a700hitter]

Actually, the prediction has been a failure to this point. The question in 2006 was whether you would trade Papelbon and Lester for a guaranteed World Championship. Those who said no did so because they believed that those 2 guys would help us win more than 1 World Championship in the next 10 years. We're into year 6 of the 10 years and yes Papelbon was a key component of the 2007 Championship, but Lester despite winning game 4 was a spare part that year. The 2007 team wins without Lester, so Lester hasn't helped us win anything yet.

[SCM33]

ksushi

 

psycho

[ORS]

Actually' date=' the prediction has been a failure to this point. The question in 2006 was whether you would trade Papelbon and Lester for a guaranteed World Championship. Those who said no did so because they believed that those 2 guys would help us win more than 1 World Championship in the next 10 years. We're into year 6 of the 10 years and yes Papelbon was a key component of the 2007 Championship, but Lester despite winning game 4 was a spare part that year. The 2007 team wins without Lester, so Lester hasn't helped us win anything yet.[/quote']

This is a very weak semantical argument. They won a championship, and both contributed, albeit to varying degress. Lester's slight role in no way diminishes the accomplishment.

[a700hitter]

This is a very weak semantical argument. They won a championship' date=' and both contributed, albeit to varying degress. Lester's slight role in no way diminishes the accomplishment.[/quote']There's nothing semantic about it. He pitched 63 innings that season. I'm not denigrating his contribution, just pointing out that he wasn't a key part of the 2007 team. Nevertheless, if you want to say that he helped them win in 2007, that's fine. The two of them still have contributed to only 1 World Championship 6 yrs after the guarantee. Maybe this year will be number two. They have this season and 4 more after it to get the second championship, but Papelbon may not be here after this season, so they had better win this year. Remember, that the premise was a guaranteed World Championship (yes it is impossible to guarantee, but that was the premise) in 2006 in exchange for trading both guys.

[SoxFanForsyth]

There's nothing semantic about it. He pitched 63 innings that season. I'm not denigrating his contribution' date=' just pointing out that he wasn't a key part of the 2007 team. Nevertheless, if you want to say that he helped them win in 2007, that's fine. The two of them still have contributed to only 1 World Championship 6 yrs after the guarantee. Maybe this year will be number two. They have this season and 4 more after it to get the second championship, but Papelbon may not be here after this season, so they had better win this year. Remember, that the premise was a guaranteed World Championship (yes it is impossible to guarantee, but that was the premise) in 2006 in exchange for trading both guys.[/quote']

 

Here's the question that it really boils down to. Could this Red Sox win the World Series this year without Papelbon and without Lester?

[ORS]

There's nothing semantic about it. He pitched 63 innings that season. I'm not denigrating his contribution, just pointing out that he wasn't a key part of the 2007 team. Nevertheless, if you want to say that he helped them win in 2007, that's fine. The two of them still have contributed to only 1 World Championship 6 yrs after the guarantee. Maybe this year will be number two. They have this season and 4 more after it to get the second championship, but Papelbon may not be here after this season, so they had better win this year. Remember, that the premise was a guaranteed World Championship (yes it is impossible to guarantee, but that was the premise) in 2006 in exchange for trading both guys.

Right, and the justification made by some for not grabbing a title in 2006 was that they would win in the subsequent 10 years with those guys. That has happened. Period.

[a700hitter]

Here's the question that it really boils down to. Could this Red Sox win the World Series this year without Papelbon and without Lester?

They have to win this year for those people who passed up the guaranteed World Championship in 2006. If they don't win this season and Papelbon walks after the season, keeping them did not turn out better than the guarantee.

[a700hitter]

Right' date=' and the justification made by some for not grabbing a title in 2006 was that they would win in the subsequent 10 years with those guys. That has happened. Period.[/quote']That's your way of looking at it. I don't pass up a guaranteed return to make the same return by taking risks. I take risks if I think I am going to do better than the guarantee. At least that's the way I invest, but you are entitled to your own philosophy. By taking the guarantee and winning in 2006, i wouldn't have had to spend $200 million in FA's to win in 2007.

[a700hitter]

They spent $200 million in FA's in 2007 to win and so far this season they have obligated themselves to over $300 million for 2 guys.

[SoxFanForsyth]

They have to win this year for those people who passed up the guaranteed World Championship in 2006. If they don't win this season and Papelbon walks after the season' date=' keeping them did not turn out better than the guarantee.[/quote']

 

Well, as adamant as I was about Pap walking this offseason, I really don't think Theo's going to let that happen. Especially after how Jenks has responded.

[Dojji]

Because winning a championship is as simple as ordering a burger.

 

They won once with those guys and put themselves in position to win more times. That's about all you can ask.

[a700hitter]

Because winning a championship is as simple as ordering a burger.

 

They won once with those guys and put themselves in position to win more times. That's about all you can ask.

Thank you for making my point. Winning a Championship is very difficult. That's why you take the guarantee, because the next one may not come for . . . maybe 86 years.

[SoxFanForsyth]

That's your way of looking at it. I don't pass up a guaranteed return to make the same return by taking risks. I take risks if I think I am going to do better than the guarantee. At least that's the way I invest' date=' but you are entitled to your own philosophy. By taking the guarantee and winning in 2006, i wouldn't have had to spend $200 million in FA's to win in 2007.[/quote']

 

But we're looking back on the situation. We have won 1 championship. The question now is, would you rather win a championship and retain Lester and Papelbon or have to dish them.

 

As far as guaranteeing the win in 2006, you would be going into 2007 without Lester and without Papelbon. Regardless if you would have made some of the other signings Theo made in that offseason, you would have had to grab a closer and a high caliber starting pitcher, which could have easily cost you in the $175mm range to lock up your closer through 2011 and your SP through 2014.

[a700hitter]

Well' date=' as adamant as I was about Pap walking this offseason, I really don't think Theo's going to let that happen. Especially after how Jenks has responded.[/quote']I wouldn't bet on him staying or leaving at this point. We just don't know.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I wouldn't bet on him staying or leaving at this point. We just don't know.

 

Well you're just not much of a betting man it appears. :harhar:

[a700hitter]

But we're looking back on the situation. We have won 1 championship. The question now is, would you rather win a championship and retain Lester and Papelbon or have to dish them.

 

As far as guaranteeing the win in 2006, you would be going into 2007 without Lester and without Papelbon. Regardless if you would have made some of the other signings Theo made in that offseason, you would have had to grab a closer and a high caliber starting pitcher, which could have easily cost you in the $175mm range to lock up your closer through 2011 and your SP through 2014.

And if those two guys win for the Sox before the end of the 2015 season, it was worth the risk. If not, the risk wasn't worth it.

[a700hitter]

Well you're just not much of a betting man it appears. :harhar:

I'm a betting man. I figure it is a 50-50 call right now. Take whatever side of the bet you want, and I'll take the other side.

[SoxFanForsyth]

And if those two guys win for the Sox before the end of the 2015 season' date=' it was worth the risk. If not, the risk wasn't worth it.[/quote']

 

But they already won a WS. Why do they have to win more WS in order for it to be worth it? Does the retention of Papelbon and Lester bring no value to the Red Sox? Winning a WS in 2007 and retaining Papelbon and Lester makes it worth it.

[a700hitter]

But they already won a WS. Why do they have to win more WS in order for it to be worth it? Does the retention of Papelbon and Lester bring no value to the Red Sox? Winning a WS in 2007 and retaining Papelbon and Lester makes it worth it.

Investors don't take risks to get the same return as a guaranteed return. It's as simple as that. You take risks to make more than guaranteed returns.

[Dojji]

But it's not the same return. It's a World Series return and many other bites at the apple.

[a700hitter]

But it's not the same return. It's a World Series return and many other bites at the apple.

Bites at the apple don't count unless you get the apple.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Investors don't take risks to get the same return as a guaranteed return. It's as simple as that. You take risks to make more than guaranteed returns.

 

It's not the same return. It's a WS plus 2 players who drastically increase your odds at winning another one.

[a700hitter]

It's not the same return. It's a WS plus 2 players who drastically increase your odds at winning another one.

But they haven't won another one yet. Hopefully, they win this year, then the gamble was worth it, but if they don't win another one for the Sox, it wasn't worth the gamble. I look at the results, not whether they gave us a chance.

[ORS]

Investors don't take risks to get the same return as a guaranteed return. It's as simple as that. You take risks to make more than guaranteed returns.

True, but you are omitting something. From a money perspective, which is really what this is about, as success on the field translates into money (fans in the seats, demand for NESN, bonus playoff revenues), it has been more. You've got the one for one (championships), but all those additional chances over the next 9 years, the ones you are casually throwing away, represent earnings in money through fielding a competitive team (just not championships...yet). This isn't a binary system.

[a700hitter]

True' date=' but you are omitting something. From a money perspective, which is really what this is about, as success on the field translates into money (fans in the seats, demand for NESN, bonus playoff revenues), it has been more. You've got the one for one (championships), but all those additional chances over the next 9 years, the ones you are casually throwing away, represent earnings in money through fielding a competitive team (just not championships...yet). This isn't a binary system.[/quote']The question was posed to us as fans, because that's what we are. Also, if we are going to add all sorts of assumed consequences to the original hypothetical, why would we assume that the Sox FO would not be shrewd enough to build strong teams in the absence of Lester and Papelbon? Heck, they are coping with the loss of the #1 prospect in the system (Westmoreland). You can't be assuming that they would have s*** teams because they traded Lester and/or Papelbon.

[ORS]

The question was posed to us as fans' date=' because that's what we are. Also, if we are going to add all sorts of assumed consequences to the original hypothetical, why would we assume that the Sox FO would not be shrewd enough to build strong teams in the absence of Lester and Papelbon? Heck, they are coping with the loss of the #1 prospect in the system (Westmoreland). You can't be assuming that they would have s*** teams because they traded Lester and/or Papelbon.[/quote']

No, I'm not assuming they would have fielded s*** teams, but those two guys have turned into bonafide superstars at their positions. Superstars that the team has had at below market value due to the nature of the 6 years of cost controlled time the teams get for young players. Replacing those two would have required either the loss of more future talent (maybe Ellsbury before his breakout this year), or the very risky proposition of the FA market, a market you feel is a massive failure for Epstein over his tenure. I think they would have fielded competitive teams most likely, but the risk was smaller in keeping the players, from the money end at least.

 

Sure, risking production on prospects is risky, but the FA market, for this management group at least, appears to be just as risky.....with the added onus of longterm commitments of financial resources that strain future spending.